Cow invaded by Human

1243: 

Vegetarians and vegans deplore the eating of meat. Abattoirs are a scar on the landscape. The daily holocaust of animal slaughtering hurts us immeasurably. And look what other damage humans have done, what crimes we’ve committed collectively, as a species? There may be plenty obvious today, and plenty of others recorded in history, but perhaps the least recorded is the story of the enslavement of one of our biggest animals. The most frightening story of the dairy cow.

Humans read Sci-Fi stories, where machines take us over. No more freedom, all controlled, all predictable and depressing. But down at the dairy, that’s the cows’ nightmare, her very life dependent on humans and their machinery. Her ultimate loss of dignity, as a slave of the human, is that they value her milk-producing abilities, and for this she endures the loss of her calf for the sake of her milk production. At the hands of humans, she loses everything. At the insistence of the machine, she gives everything.

Cows know that after humans have finished fiddling inside their bodies, pregnancy happens. The cow ends up fertilised and much later on she becomes dependent on a machine, for without a good sucking-out, once or twice a day, the result would be death. Humans have effectively interfered with her body, by genetically enlarging the udder over many generations, so that she now carries a heavy bag of milk, and then needs to be attached to a machine, to have the liquid sucked out of her.

Her body doesn’t belong to her. It has been invaded by the ‘secretion-increasers’. Humans have devised a milk-making machine with a cow inside it.

And a happy new year to you all, but be assured that the cow's forthcoming year will have nothing new or happy about it. 

Join the club

1242: 

It’s maybe my tight fistedness that stops me paying annual subscriptions, but I do have other reasons for no longer being a paid up member of any animal group.  I’m the first to admit that I’m not assisting their good work and perhaps not in any position to voice my opinion.  But in my heart, I’m a fervent supporter of their work:

To stop battery farming,

To ban live exports,

To illegalise mulesing of sheep

But there are so many other horrors which fall below their radar, and any amount still to be done, exposing routine animal cruelty.   In my opinion, most animal groups don’t seem to be speaking strongly enough against routine animal use.

Most animal rights groups have enthusiastic supporters.  Activists do hard, voluntarily work, attempting to stop the worst abuses.  But in doing so, they neglects the bigger picture (the need to persuade people not to use animals).  Even vegan groups, who stand for ethical vegetarianism, are drawn much more towards issues of health and food, and far less to fundamental issues concerning the animal’s right to live its own life.

Some groups are doing great work, rescuing animals, exposing cruelty, promoting vegan food.  If only it wasn’t just about that.  If only it were kept at about fifty percent, and the other fifty percent of energy spent promoting the idea that animals are not there for human convenience.  One of the main jobs of any animal rights group is surely to see how things could turn out in the future, and nudge public attitude that way.  Get them thinking as if things really could get much better, and they’ll have good reason to become vegan animal activists, like us.

Lambs-to-the-Slaughter on Christmas Day

1141:

Edited by CJ Tointon

Christmas Eve:  I passed a butcher's shop today, selling lamb.  Outside was a big poster of a classical painting depicting a lamb nestled in the arms of Jesus.   Obviously the butcher is selling the 'executed' version!    Cynical or wot?

Christmas Day:  I passed a retirement home in Kings Cross and read on a huge banner outside "The Lamb of God takes away our sins".  Now that's amazing!  It looks as though God sanctions the eating of lambs because they take away our sins??   As if the lamb cutlets de-culpable-ates us?  No wonder people find these sin-saving meats so delicious!

It’s Christmas and summertime Down Under - in Australia.  It’s a popular frying time here.  Lambs are keen to queue up, to be first for the slaughter.  It’s an exciting time of the year for all concerned.  Well, for people anyway.  Australians enjoy their lamb.   They enthusiastically eat lamb between Christmas Day and throughout January, till the bonanza of lamb-flesh-eating on the 26th - Australia Day!  Perhaps if the lamb on your dinner plate takes away your sins and saves you, you can barbeque it without causing any offence!  Is the Church in cahoots with the Abattoir?

Off to the slaughterhouse they go, in their thousands - pre-pubescent sheep (lambs). They’re killed for their tender flesh.  But because Australians regard all sheep as stupid animals with very little sentience, they feel this makes it OK to kill them!  Whether old or young, sheep are thought of as nothing.  Australians think nothing about their welfare or about killing or eating them.  They are there simply to satisfy the human.  And the cooking of them serves to satisfy that beloved of all human hobbies, the fire-ritual, the roasting of lamb flesh over an open flame!  There’s excitement at the smell of it cooking!  The crowd gathers!  More excitement at the eating of it - in spite of what they know!

What they know (unless abysmally schooled) is this:  Something 'dark' has been done (something they couldn’t have done themselves) to acquire the meat to make their BBQ successful.  But it comes at a terrible cost. Someone, somewhere, has taken a knife to a lamb’s throat!  Someone has looked a lamb in the face and perhaps warned it about ending its life.  No one benefits from its execution.  The reality is that we sanction the killing, but the idea disgusts us. 

The example of a lamb being executed, then barbequed, all for the pleasure of eating it, might not sit well in the conscience.  And that's where the struggle is, between conscience and pleasure, denial and temptation.  If we give in to pleasure and temptation, we have to mentally turn away from the truth  - "out of sight, out of mind".  Once out of mind, the crime is forgotten and the food experience can be better enjoyed.

The lamb is the symbol of innocence.  It’s a cute, cuddly and playful little creature.  It springs high in the air out of shear exuberance.  It gambols.  No other animal is quite so pretty and energetic.  But few other animals are so appallingly traumatised when still immature, by humans.  You might say that we humans symbolise the very opposite of the lamb.  We can be 'dark' and careless, and cowardly, especially when we let someone else do our dirty work for us (the killing). 
And dirty work it is, since this 'someone else' must take hold of the young animal and slit its throat, so that it can be butchered and made available for our BBQ.  Could there be an uglier outcome for this sweet creature’s life??  Taken from its mother to the slaughter house, its body butchered then roasted on a spit??  

We humans aren’t used to being denied what we want.  If it’s available, the human will be tempted and then determined to acquire it.  Typical carnivores are usually weak individuals, easily tempted, who salivate at the thought of animal food.  They may give some thought to those dear lambs being slaughtered, but they eat them just the same! What would you call this?  Giving into temptation?  Showing lack of self-discipline?  Is there any excuse for people who know what an animal has gone through on its journey from home to death, but still ignore it? 

But these people are cornered.  They feel they have to be hostile to anyone who disagrees with their policy that "sheep are nothing".  Having connived with a terrible act of cruelty, they must remain unmoved so they can continue eating 'lamb'.  Or they can seriously consider stopping eating  lamb!

But giving it up is another story.  Let’s look at it from the consumer’s point of view.  When it comes to self gratification, this favourite meat isn’t easy to give up.  It’s like smoking or drinking or any other uncontrolled habit.  Indulging in it is ALL we’ve ever known.  We’ve always eaten lamb (even though there’s nothing spiritually self-improving about doing so, quite the opposite in fact).


Probably everyone looks for some sort of self-improvement in life.  And we succeed in so many wonderful ways, with one single exception.  We don’t search out or examine the ethics behind the food we eat.  We think it’s a waste of time, being disciplined to not eat animals.  It would seem that if it doesn’t make us richer or better-thought-of, then saving lambs from the slaughter is just irrelevant.

Companion animals and animal groups

1140:

It’s terrible for me, writing about the issue of ‘not using animals for human convenience’, because it seems I’m attacking almost everyone, not just the meat eaters and milk-drinkers but vegans too, who buy meat for their companion animals.  Just about everybody is an animal-user/abuser in some way.  And that makes it difficult for any of them to support the ‘no-use’ principle.  The difficulty comes when we try to justify our own positions, when in theory our maxim is not to hurt, but we can’t live up to it in practice .

But let’s bite the bullet.  Look at the people who keep animals as companions.  Some are rescued, and that is surely far better than patronising a pet shop.  But they all have to be fed and since most normally eat meat, it’s down to the human to acquire it.  And to do that we have to sanction the killing of animals to feed our home animals.  They must have the meat we believe they need, to survive and be healthy.

But food aside, what about freedom?  This is Nature’s gift to all sentient beings, freedom to move about.  Now, however well loved our home animals are, most of them are given no freedom to move about as their nature dictates.  For them there’s no natural life.  They are the property of a human, owned as ‘pets’, and treated like playthings.  Or bodyguards.  They’re mostly socially isolated, mostly neutered, micro chipped, medicated and fed old ‘kill’, a poor substitute for real dog food or cat food. Mostly out of a tin, their food is predominantly meat and therefore always at the expense of their fellow animals, down on the farm.

So whether we eat animals ourselves or feed ‘animals’ to dogs and cats, most of us are making use of animals.  Some much more than others!  The problem here, as I see it, is that we aren’t ready to take seriously a ‘no-use’ principle yet.  We only subscribe to the watered down version - use less.

Some (but very few) don’t give their animals any meat.  And anything missing from their diet (cats particularly) is made up with a specially prepared plant-based supplement, that provides essential nutrients.  By accommodating a companion animal we’re responsible for their health and the quality of their life.  But at the same time we are responsible for the animal population in general, none being more important than the other.  And therefore, symbiosis between human and animal might be achieved, but not by one providing the other with food taken from such places as abattoirs.

Most people haven’t thought about their own use-of-meat let alone their pets’.  Those who are caring for a meat-eating animal  are feeding a carnivore at the expense of harmless, non-carnivorous animals.  Symbolic or what!

By writing this, I’m probably sounding offensive, especially if you have meat-eating animals at home.  Perhaps you’re doing some really great work to help other animals, as part of a plan to liberate them.  That way you try to make the equation morally balanced.  But the question goes deeper.

Most animal rights groups are doing brave work on behalf of the worst abused animals, the factory farmed poultry and pigs.  Most animal rights groups have potentially offend-able members, who might withdraw their funds if the group becomes too radical.  I’m suggesting ‘too much’ would be ‘abolition’ - bringing something wrong to an end.  So we might want something to end (animal-killing) but we also want people to change their attitudes to animals.  To grasp the idea that it’s the untrustworthiness of humans that is noticed whenever they’re  around animals.  Humans can’t leave animals alone - they see dollars or some other advantage in their eyes.  Animals are suggestive of good times (cuddling them, eating them, getting them to do work for us).  But the good times come at the expense of some bad times, which can not be justified.

Stepping into future trends

1139: 

I’m always reminded of Alice’s (in Wonderland) surprise when she steps into another world inhabited by strange beings, and they don’t respond to her as she expects - it reminds me of the strangeness of omnivores, and their obstinacy, and their unnecessary suffering, all to preserve the rightness of what they do. Everything that’s wrong becomes right - it’s a topsy-turvy world, when the omnivore is out there justifying things.

         

In our world, we face problems whose obvious nonviolence-based answers seem to be staring us in the face.  So, it’s by being obstinate about going completely non-violent that stops us making important changes.  Omnivores won’t give up violence-based solutions.  They won’t risk non-violence, which they don’t fully understand - they can’t connect up the reasoning between their becoming a solely-plant-based-eater and for that single act bringing an end to the big  problems of the world.

Of course, they’re right.  What can one person do to solve global problems?  Omnivores believe our plan is too ridiculously simple to work.  They still think in the old ways - that everything changes by collective action, eventually.  Too slow and too passing-the-buck, I say.  This particular vegan believes it starts and finishes with the individual.

If you’re vegan, you not only know that it works but also why it works, both on a personal level and the solving-global-problems level.  Omnivores make the mistake of relying on big machines of change, legislation, fines, taxes - using force to bring about change.  They still think governments, with reputations for using force, will be able to solve the big problems of today. They even believe the pollies actually have the will to solve the big things!!  But governments don’t do that.  They patch-up.  They never fix-up, long term. 

The most disillusioned punters in our society, fall back in desperation on personal-martyrdom or suffering in various forms or towards seeking an enlightened state of mind, with which they can stay cushioned from the state of the world.  Unfortunately, neither politics nor religion can help solve many of these presently-surfacing problems, because many of them are here with us for their symbolic significance.  They point to individual truth and responsibility, where solutions to our problems can only be found by doing something for ourselves.

The way we live, the items we buy, the habits we have, they are all so strongly set in our daily behaviours.  They are the comfort blankets we use when we consider shaking our reality by making radical changes.  For some of us there was always this gut instinct, overriding everything, to act to change for the better.  For the greater good.  And since the greatest good is the result of hard work, it was always going to have to be change that involves a mix of altruism and enjoyment. 

These are individual changes.  These are on that level where we are looking to ourselves, making this level of change for ourselves, and doing the right thing because it give us great pleasure. Becoming ‘vegan’ is a simple solution.  It’s selfish.  It’s done for myself.  It’s unselfish too, just as much so.  It’s something we can do at home.  It’s something that immediately transforms life.  And in addition, it eventually, inevitably, sets a global trend.

Feeling stronger in our self

1138: 

Personal self-development, on ‘my road to enlightenment’ or my ‘quest for happiness’, isn’t only my journey through life but my place in the lives of others, too. Otherwise it gets too self indulgent. To feel successful, I’ve got to be able to convince me of myself, and that’s where veganism is important. It’s code of practical compassion lets us empathise with another person’s situation, from which we can start to think about others before thinking about our self. If that sounds idealistic, it’s not. Most of us do it, nearly all the time. We are mostly NOT self indulgent and not uncontrollably tempted. And what’s more, if we ever have a reason to not self-gratify, we’ll take it, because we all want to think of ourselves as stronger than temptation.

That’s of course how practising vegans want to see themselves anyway, by including animals in our sweep of empathy. Which brings us back to yesterday’s blog about the ‘terrified lamb, whose throat is about to be cut’. Which brings us back to the obvious need to observe vegan principles in life. When you decide to become vegan you have to see it not as a restriction but as a liberation, not as an abstention but a taking up of something better. And part of that ‘better’ is something beyond self-interest. For sure, food-wise it means healthier food, but ethics-wise it means something compassionate, some act of empathy.

Surely, if we want to improve ourselves, it comes down to doing the right thing, even difficult or inconvenient. The leap forward in self-improvement is energy balancing, helped by our food generating good energy and the ethical component of what we buy preventing energy draining from bad conscience. But once that’s sorted, confidence grows. The biggest self-development-feeling comes knowing our resolutions can be made and will be kept. We feel all the stronger for that.

Up-mood

1136: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

When vegans say “change to plant-based food”, it’s about the most troubling suggestion anyone could hear, because on the one hand it sounds right but on the other depressing.  Veganism touches the most matters, concerning personal survival and peace of mind. Too much! And, most people still prefer the life they know, rather than risk going into so much unknown.

However much vegans promise good times ahead, however fit and energetic and calm-minded we may seem, basic survival-instinct is our persuader; it’s a mix of safety factors and happiness factors, concerning cravings and comfort, and all filed under ‘habits’.  Habit number one is mood, the things we do to help maintain our up-mood; anything endangering my happy-mood is rejected.

Up-mood overrides logic, compassion, imagination, the lot.  At a crucial point (between considering the unknown and actually going there) comes a dread of leaving behind a big part of our satisfaction-guaranteed life.  That dread stops people listening to too much stuff about animals. But they do hear what we say, even if they don’t always process it. And they don't process it for fear of being in fuller consciousness of ‘it’.  They fear it might affect them badly.  So, when they purposely zone-out of what they’re hearing, it’s the same as tuning-out of a radio or closing a book we don’t like - we avoid whatever makes us feel uneasy.

It’s not that difficult for our 'listeners' to tune out of  our ‘vegan talk’, because most others do just that. When I’m talking to someone about ‘all this’, and because a lot of it's to do with animal suffering, the whole experience of listening is bound to be unpleasant anyway. But that’s before we even get to the ‘disturbing personal guilt about it all'.

I reckon it’s our job to gauge how much unpleasant stuff we let out and how much uplifting stuff we use, to sugar the pill.  And if we’re going to sneak in one or two moral judgements, then we gauge them even more carefully.

Veganism isn’t only about giving things up, it’s a lot to do with feeling better about ourselves, feeling more energetic and conscientious.  Feeling more mentally alert and agile and therefore more optimistic.  All of that I'll need, just to withstand the strain of dropping habits.  All my life I’ve done such-and-such, and now I'll never be doing it again.

One particular habit is most difficult, concerning something we love and hate all at the same time.  It’s a habit we’ve been feeling bad about, perhaps for a long time, and yet the thought of dropping it is tempting.  ... And, so the vegan mob will tell you, the loss of one habit is compensated by the new habit ... And they go on to talk about many other advantages.

But the trouble is in the pre-meditation.  You can’t get it out of your head, that ridiculous image of The Lettuce Leaf Diet.  What would life be like, like that? Just trying to do it for a while will inevitably bring a lot of once-well-hidden things up into consciousness.  Consciousness has a quiet word with Conscience, and whammo, there’s no going back.  Once started, it becomes an all-or-nothing project by this all-or-nothing guy.  But what about the ‘nothing’ bit?  Yerrgh!

At the edge of the water my toe tests the temperature.  My friend who is already in calls out.

“It’s really warm”.
“Oh yea?

When eyes glaze over

 1135: 

When I start talking about animals I’m familiar with ‘that look’ I get, when their eyes glaze over, as if to say, “we don’t have to listen to this crap”.

I might be out socialising, and perhaps I’m offered some food, and I dare to bring up the subject.  I edge towards it at first, “not for me, thanks”, but when I see that no one is picking up, I go about things less subtly; I might say something like, “…But should we be eating animals?”  Have I gone too far, uninvited, using the offer of food as a springboard to launch into my animal rights spiel?  Rude?  Would I be surprised if the door were shut in my face?

But sometimes it isn’t, because people are often wanting to ‘bring it on’.  They’re fascinated to hear what my next line of argument will be, to see if they can match it or squash it.  If the door is open to discussing the subject, I’m often aware that they’re trawling for material; they’re interested in recycling the ‘story’ with mates, later, when I’m gone.  “This ‘vaygn’ came to dinner the other night and do you know what he said? ...”.  It’s a story that can be exaggerated for effect (no one being actually interested to hear what he actually said).

Was I being rude to mention the ‘animal thing’ at a social event?  Perhaps.  But when we vegans do bring up the subject in a social setting, we expect it to go down like a lead balloon.  But we don’t want to be ignored entirely.  Amongst friends, we assume the role of bringing them up to speed, on this animal-food thing.  Maybe?

If I decide to air the subject, in public, perhaps then I have to take the initiative by being a bit cheeky, light hearted and even disparaging of the animal-based foods they’re eating.  It’s done in a fairly light way, never disparaging of the people themselves, of course.  We can have a lot of fun with this subject of food, refusing it, giving our reasons, simply saying “No.  I don’t think so”, as if they’ve made a social blunder by even having it there, let alone offering it.

We can act a little dumb. That always works wonders.  “It’s dead animal isn’t it?” ... but with just enough tone in the voice to keep it humorous.

I’m not out to start a quarrel or cause offence, but I am out to be a little provocative.  Each situation is different, each is judged as to how far we can go and still get away with it.  My rule is to be pro-active but never offensive.  I like to be a bit edgy, always ready to enter spirited repartee.  And in good spirit take a bite out of their attitudes whilst leaving them enough room to bite back.  I think that’s fair, it’s healthy, and if I’m given the bum’s rush, I know at least I’ve tried to test the waters as well as possible, and with some humour.

In reality though, I have to come to terms with the emotional impact of being rejected.  I see the subject seriously.  For me, outright rejection is infuriating.  Sometimes all I can see in front of me is a blank look, a resistance, even a maddening smirk.  And when there’s no chance to make humour of it, and it’s all deadly serious, I get prepared for what’s about to happen - that’s when eyes don’t glaze over but stare blindly.  These are hardened meat-heads, on whom I’m having zero impact. I can see them tuning out.  I can foresee how they’re also about to slam the door in my face, not because of my beliefs but because they feel I’m trying to invade their privacy.  If I become exasperated and try to barge past their defences, dig right into their guilts and fears, I’ll not only fail to bring them round but I’m likely lose them entirely.

That’s the trouble with the health-talk, fear-of-personal-illness approach, because we’re selling our philosophy short.  I am not trying to change people’s attitudes by making them feel guilty or afraid, because it only makes them run away.

Today many young people still have the health of their youth (not worried about food doing damage to them) and aren’t yet so consumed with guilt about animals (having not been totally responsible for the food they’ve been eating whilst under adult provision).  They identify with their peers, and especially those with attractive personalities who ‘eat cool’.  Wowsers, including vegans, may not be seen as ‘cool’, especially if the animal activist is seen as one who is in a bad temper ... which is why I don’t want to come across as frustrated, assertive or as a moral preacher.  But if I can get up close, flak or no flak, I’ll take my chance to say what I want to say.

But what to say, and when best to say it?

Over dinner, Animal Rights is tabooed, because it deals with ethics and values and self-disciplines … and free-willed people don’t like being told what to eat, when eating.  So it might seem like an appropriate time to make comments, but meal times are also a time when our comments will be most resented.

Why people resist

1134: 

I think there’s support for veganism, in theory but not in practice.  Ideally our arguments are attractive but for most omnivores they hate the idea of giving up so many things.

The logic goes something like this: we have, within vegan principle, the inspiration of non-violence by way of the food we eat and don’t eat.  At every meal I’m conscious of acting ethically and thinking things out for myself.  Non-vegans eat what they like and think much the same as everyone else, regarding the ethical provenance of their food.  We think plant-based eating and liberating food-animals important, whereas others do not.  At least, for them it isn’t important enough to break with convention. 

So I have to keep returning to the drawing board, to ask myself what it is we’re really facing.  It isn’t just a stubborn mob of meat-heads, but people with certain difficulties, preventing them taking on any big personal repair plans.  They don’t believe it’s possible, to change the habits of a lifetime.  They do know the essential facts.  They recognise the ethics involved, but they just can’t or won’t act on them.

They know that much of the food they eat is NOT ethically or nutritionally sound.  And doing the maths, you can calculate the rate of damage done by counting the thousands of meals a year eaten, for every year you’ve lived.  Damage has been done to both body and conscience.  But who wants to admit they’ve been wrong for all that long time?

If we want to restore the balance, and make things right, we won’t do it by making politically correct gestures.  It can’t be done by making a few token changes to the shopping list.  The problem still remains unaddressed.  To stop violence to animals, it comes down to forgoing MANY of one’s favourite foods (as well as other commodities).  This is based on self-denial for the sake of a higher principle.  In that way one can move over, not only into new food but into new thinking.  In daily reality, it means moving into another world.  This is the world of never looking back, of plant-based foods and non-animal clothing and a deeper respect for sentience.

Put that way, perhaps I’m making it look like a massive undertaking (for me it was, for others it’s not).  But the benefits outweigh the sacrifices.  I was a cake junkie, and now I never go into a cake shop - the vegan principle not only makes a lot of sense but it keeps us away from dangerous substances, which laughingly most people still call ‘food’.

For any one of us, this sort of change to veganism is both exciting and daunting.  All those years of eating and liking animal foods - as with any addictive substance, getting ‘clean’ is hard.  And if there’s any doubts, like safety, it won’t take much to muddy the waters, enough to let people take the easy way out, and stick with what they know.

The Animal Industries survive and thrive.  Making up the conforming masses are the duped people, willing to comply with the advertising message.  They allow themselves to be attracted to displays in food and clothing shops.  They follow the recommendations in the ads.   They end up putting their money where they’re told to put it.  They accept the nutritional advice from media ‘experts’.  They do what others do; regular usage of animal foods and commodities prevents the uptake of any negative information about animal foods or farm-animal treatment.  And there’s no guidance coming from ‘above’.  In fact, almost every person with any standing or influence in our society, be they spiritual or educational leaders, will always remain silent on these issues, simply because they’re ‘users’ themselves.  For them to speak out against any of this would lose them support, or ruin their position in Society.  So much, for those leaders of our society who live by higher principles. 

Despite all this, many are seeing through the weasel words of The Authorities.  They’re breaking away, not only attracted by the logic of vegans’ arguments but because the can see how heart breaking it is for the animals.  They’re deciding to change despite all the personal inconvenience of such a change. 

Transitional stages

1133: 

Being part of the Animal Rights Movement is an advantage, not just for the vegan lifestyle it suggests but for developing a certain lightness-of-being.  If ever I’ve achieved that, I’ve noticed people are feel less afraid of me.  They recognise a non-violence in me, which in turn lets them trust me, or at least it helps them not fear I’m going to say something hurtful to them.

It’s hard for me to talk about this without seeming cute, but there are distinct advantages in being non-threatening.  For a start it lets the subject I want to talk about be taken at face value, without all the shutters going up at the outset.  I suppose it’s about not making value judgements.

Being Animal Rights-oriented for some years, it’s easy to forget how I viewed the difference between refusing to know and wanting to learn.  Now, I realise just how difficult this subject is for people to talk about and learn from.  I’m less impatient these days, especially when people are obstinate or they don’t seem to understand what I’m on about.  In the end I do have to care where others are coming from, knowing that they’re overwhelmed by personal and global problems, whilst knowing that they’re contributing to them and not alleviating them.  It’s a perception glitch many people face, that they can’t see past the obvious food/health/animal-cruelty angle of vegan principle; they don’t see enough deep truth in it (behind veganism and animal rights, non-aggression and robust health) to realise it all comes down to working with Nature and not against it.

The human race has been struggling to dominate Nature for a long time, and that’s probably the main cause of the global problems plaguing us today.  Personally I know I need to find a way of going back to a more natural lifestyle.  I don’t mean to live primitively, just find a way to use present systems harmlessly.

By learning how to consider others before embarking on harmful actions, I’m experiencing break-through.  And of course, that makes me want, more than anything else, to communicate what I’ve found out to others.  “You too can make a breakthrough”.  So I feel this passion, enthusiasm and what sounds like altruism welling up in me.  But to communicate all this, to bring those feelings to any sort of action, requires good morale, good mood and a genial disposition.  And, in turn, that means I’ve got to be able to understand where other people are at.  I need to overcome the odds against me, including lack of support from friends, family and even fellow vegans.

But if I’ve been disappointed in people it might not be such a disadvantage.  As others draw away, I’ve become less reliant on encouragement from them.  Morale has to be largely self-generated.  And if I’m going to be spending a lot of time using my energy to promote Animal Rights, then morale is going to be important.

I know vegans are still very few in number and pro-active vegans even fewer.  As rather lonely advocates for animals, vegans may feel unsupported, vulnerable and at times depressed by others’ lack of interest, but if we get affected too badly by that we won’t be able to maintain momentum - and that means zero help to the imprisoned animals, and less chance to inspire others, or encourage and inform them.

         

Animal Rights is not like a contemplative religious order.  It isn’t based on prayer or wishful thinking but on experimentation, trialling of ideas and attempts to break-through old attitudes.  It’s a multidimensional pursuit - not only about doing one’s duty to help animals or trying to convert people to vegan food, but about making hard work (the whole project of Animal Liberation) enjoyable.  If I can do that one thing for myself, I know I won’t be pulled down by what others are thinking.  And then my own motivation doesn’t become the issue, and I’m deriving my own pleasure and satisfaction from the gratifying feeling of doing something constructive, for those who most need it.

Does that sound too pious?  Perhaps it does, but vegans are up against a huge barrier of resistance.  It impacts on us heavily - it’s not easy to be part of such a tiny minority.  And what we don’t need is to be dragged-down.  And what we do need is solo exploration, that can take on a momentum of its own.  Then discovery is its own reward and our communication with others will run more smoothly and less-frighteningly.  After that, the transitional stage is on a downhill run. 

Hurting Animals

1132:

Edited by CJ Tointon

When representing Animal Rights, I try to steer clear of sounding 'too right' about animal cruelty and animal food (despite having no doubts about it myself).  There’s something else important to establish - the need for empathy between each other and of doing unto others what you’d want to have done to yourself.  I think this is the key to igniting people’s empathy for animals.  If we can apply the principle to each other, then why not to animals?

The popular quest for enlightenment, being somewhat spiritually self-indulgent, diverts many good-hearted people away from one big, dark blot on their personal landscape - rampant animal cruelty.  But by taking the emphasis away from oneself (my own interests and self development) I’m left with empathy.  This comes from a greater need to 'share' than to 'keep-for-oneself'.  Animal Rights takes that empathetic characteristic in humans and places it squarely at the feet of the beings who suffer most.  The ones we enslave -  domesticated animals!

By comparing and contrasting the empathy shown to our dog at home with our lack of empathy for other animals, we can see a big contradiction.  The last thing we’d want to do to our companions at home is hurt them, because we know them as individuals.  It’s the same with other peoples' dogs.   Each dog has his/her own personality.  We can feel that and empathise with it.  In fact, we're rather proud of ourselves for being able to do so.  

Animal Rights emphasises the strong bonds we have between ourselves and 'the creatures'.  It’s likely none of us could purposely 'de-individualise' any animal in order to put it into a 'special category' so that cruelty could be inflicted upon it.  For most of us it would be absurd to try.  We certainly couldn’t be complicit in ending its life for personal gain.  But that’s exactly what animal farmers force themselves to do (that is, after all, how they make their living, just as many others do in the 'Animal Industries') and in turn 'force' their customers to be complicit in that same hurting and killing.

When I was young, I often went hiking in the country overnight.  One evening I found a pigeon that had eaten poisoned bait. I looked after it overnight but it was in such obvious pain that the next day I took a knife to its throat.  I often think of that bird.  I always hoped that, at the moment when I had to end its life,  it understood why I did it.  But for an animal to face the knife without that sort of reason, is quite a terrible thought!   Yet billions of animals face that very act of murder each day, with no kindness and no anaesthetic to ease their pain and terror.  When they are about to be executed, there’s the smell of death all around them and the machinery of death, along with the all too familiar 'ubiquitous' human, forcing them forward to their untimely death.  To think of just one animal suffering like this is unimaginable, let alone billions of them!

Humans, who love animals have a strong sense of empathy.  But for many people, even a felled tree is empathised with more than a farm animal.  Humans are good at pretending.  They pretend they can feel empathy because they love their dogs and cats (and trees).  They feel rightly proud of that.  But after having won a few points in their favour, they will afford themselves 'special circumstances' to be applied to farm animals.  All for the sake of 'essential' food!  By providing a market for animal-killing, they connive in the terrible treatment (and even more terrible deaths) of these animals!

Some over-the-top passionate talk

1131: 

If vegan activists are in the business of talking about animals, it all adds up to one great big personal challenge.  And, eventually, for some of us, that can become a main reason-to-be.  I can only speak for myself, but for me it is almost obsessional.  It’s that interesting.

         

The whole Animal Rights thing has to be one of the greatest challenges any of us face. Whether struggling to change eating habits/ wardrobes, or as vegans, struggling to change others’ views of what veganism is. I suppose it boils down to NOT letting the challenge incapacitate us. Let it be inspiring or energy-making but not depleting.

Because we live by such an obviously meaningful code of behaviour, all vegans know what a life-with-‘meaning’ feels like; it’s almost impossible to imagine what life-without-meaning must be like. But the suddenness of this realisation, for us, is double edged. Unfortunately, this bolt-from-the-blue has the effect of moving us even farther away from our (omnivorous) friends, and that makes things difficult all round. It makes us more separate, and with that come particular problems. It makes what is incredibly important to us too far away from those who find that very matter uninteresting and ignorable.

I think that’s where the main glitch is. Our gremlin. As soon as we vegans realise we’re UNABLE to discuss this subject with others, we then have to go around with gaffer-tape stuck across our mouths. And them to be especially well taped with those others, who remain deliberately ignorant of this subject.

Not only is ‘Animal Rights’, as a subject, multifaceted, but it can’t help itself, for it will keep inferring or pointing the finger directly, at almost everyone. And that makes this subject both complex and indigestible for most people. The subject is nothing if not broad - implications (behind ‘animal-rights-vegan-nonviolence-etc.’) touch everywhere. Almost nothing in our modern day lifestyle remains untouched or unexamined (at least by us).

What I think is happening today, is that a growing number of people are no longer necessarily able to trust as much as they used to. For example, we can’t trust those who were once considered trustworthy-sources-of-food-and-clothing’.

For us to feel safe, we all need to be sure of the safety of the stuff we bring into our lives. It’s trust we’re used to, because we’ve grown up with it. We want to believe what we’re told. We want to believe products aren’t darkened by violence. And yet we’re all between a rock and a hard place over this.

We are but ordinary, if brain-enlarged, human-animals. Survival is our top game. (Same for all animals and beings). One might say that it’s one hell of a powerful instinct, survival. But, when a problem is encountered and we start to feel any discomfort, we use force to solve the problem.

We say: there’s almost nothing we do (especially involving others) that wouldn’t benefit from a little violence. Even in mild cases, we all find ourselves using some force to get what we want. Methinks - what outcomes for my benefit?

         

If we try to make this subject of Animal Rights/Veganism just an ethics or health issue, we’d be selling it cheaply. It’s all of that, but so much more. It opens up a piece of our mind that focuses on peace-of-mind. It opens up a zone where intelligence mixes with compassion, helping us to resonate with each other and, if you like, get closer to our very soul.

Ambassadors for animals

1130: 

For me, being vegan and going public is advocating, not unlike representing a client, but having to guess how best to act as if I were following the instructions of the animals themselves.  I trust I’m acting with their approval.

As farmed animals aren’t gratuitously violent, I imagine they wouldn’t want me to be hostile with anyone (I like to think animals know best how to deal with the human since they’ve seen the very worst of human behaviour and learnt how to survive it).

If they could advise us in any way at all, they’d probably advise us to work on our fellow humans in a slow and steady way.

 We can learn a lot from animals.  Since they don’t draw attention to themselves when dealing with their handlers, neither should we when talking about animal farming with anyone at all.  We can let them have their say first, to earn their go-ahead to have our say, and then there’s just a chance we might just persuade them to less violence.

Why be so indulgent? Because they, whether farmer or customer, represent almost all of our population.  That gives them confidence to do what they regard animals as objects to do with as the human pleases.  The law allows this approach, and the law makers reflect the wishes of the general population.  So, although there are still many, they are the ones who we need to convince.  They must be  brought on-side before any changes will be made to the laws.  And until the laws change, the Animal Industry will continue to treat animals with contempt.

To date, most people still love their animal foods, as well as leather goods and woollens, and much more.  Omnivores aren’t going to roll over easily, and are even less likely to if we try to corner them.  It’s easy to forget just how aggressive otherwise-peaceful people can be when it comes to protecting their own rights.  It’s likely we’re seen as threatening their animal-dependant lifestyles.  It’s understandable.  None of us likes being placed ‘in the wrong’, which is precisely what we do when talking Animal Rights to non-vegans.

Perhaps we have no other option.  We have to lay it on the line, we can’t soften up the facts as horrendous as they are.  But, to be fair, putting people right will always seem like showing off or being morally superior.

Even though we have watertight arguments, we’re likely to put peoples’ backs up when we start talking about all this.  It’s likely most people have never come across ‘abolition-ism’ before.  Once they realise where we’re coming from, it’s likely to make them feel uneasy.  It’s likely they’ll react negatively, or at least be defensive.  They feel insulted by having what has been, up to now, an accepted part of their life – we’re making it into something wrong.  Their aggressive reaction or pretend naivety is often a cover-up, because they can’t get past the ugly facts.  Having no strong arguments, there’s nowhere else for them to go.  They feel uncomfortable.  They take umbrage.  Maybe they storm off.  And we might think we’ve won the day, but in truth the damage has been done by perhaps losing them altogether. 

Being well informed

1129: 

This is one broad subject to learn about.  It touches on so many things, including ethics, nutrition, environmental concerns and modern husbandry.  Animal advocates are expected to have a working knowledge about all of this if they want to speak intelligently about Animal Rights.  It isn’t enough to cite cruelty to animals as the one reason to be vegan, although that’s my own primary reason.  There are in fact so many other reasons, and it’s good to be able to speak about each of them.

         

But I mustn’t kid myself.  However many arguments I put up and how ever many details I can offer, I’ll always have a difficulty overcoming the initial shock of, “What, no more animal products at all, food, clothes, shoes, zoos?”.

         

The long list of ‘don’ts’ makes boycotting all things with animal content sound too much to take on.  It’s one huge decision to be making, and not to be made lightly.  To understand this, helps me to not become too righteous.  On the one hand, for me, it’s simple - I don’t use anything with animal connections, but to others it’s daunting.  For me, when I’m encountering opposition I have to be confident about what I’m saying, not get too easily rattled.  I have to be able to deal with being put on the spot.

Whatever we feel inside, whether passionate, angry or well-informed, we don’t need to show it, especially if we’re talking with red necked, vegan-haters.  Whatever we think about the person we’re with, if we can maintain a neutral exterior, and listen without reacting, and talk calmly, we’ll maybe win some grudging respect.  It might be just enough to be given the go-ahead to speak more fully.  And then, once we’re allowed to voice our opinion and flesh out our arguments, we’ll have a better chance to reach people.

Being friendly, not too pushy

1128: 

The Animal Rights-Vegan position is a subject people discuss amongst themselves, but only in order to disparage it and work out resistant arguments to it.  The stock response is that vegan activists are ‘dangerous extremists’.  We are bagged.  Doors are closed to us.

         

But not everyone is closed minded - mainly younger people.   They, having made fewer independent food choices, aren’t as likely to be defensive.  But can they rely on information about plant-based diets?

         

First and foremost, we must come across as well informed and concerned about people’s safety, plus have high personal standards, plus a friendly sensitivity.  If we’re affable enough, some chutzpah can work, as long as we maintain a sense of humour and some self effacing familiarity.

I don’t try to be best buddy, but I do try to be open to any views, ready to ‘take it’ as well as dish it out.  People are often wanting to know what I eat, what a vegan diet is, and they’ll put up with a bit of cheek, even to the point where I can send them up for eating ‘dead animals’, but I’m careful not to go too far too fast.  There’s a hairsbreadth between friendly chat and me hitting them with a value-judgement.

         

I sometimes feel, out of loyalty to the animals, that I should be deadly serious and confront people where ever I can, to show how deeply I feel.  But I notice that as soon as I start getting heavy they drop eye contact.  They stop identifying with me, because I’m getting personal about it.  They lose interest and go on the defensive.

         

Passing on any information, if it’s laden with judgement, is confronting.  Even in high disagreement, I’m trying to maintain a position of equality, showing respect for all views (even wrong ones!).  However far apart our views may be, our feelings for each other shouldn’t be compromised, so that the human-to-human connections are kept open.  We’re never anything else but two individuals chatting about the possibility of reassessing our attitudes (in this case, regarding the use of animals) .

         

If I’m speaking to a room full of strangers, as long as some level of affection is maintained, there’s a good chance for constructive, lively interaction.  Once I forget the good name of the cause I’m representing, communication goes dead.

         

The best teachers I had at school never lost sight of their students.  They had an eye for trouble, they saw everything, they stood no nonsense but never withdrew their affection, and I think that’s how we should be; don’t let anyone get away with rudeness but at the same time don’t swing into zealotry.  And no cowardly tactics either.  If I’m asked to explain something and I hide my lack of knowledge behind an emotional rave about animal cruelty, I lose credibility.  On one level people are very well informed – most adults know more or less what’s going on, but may not know the details.  Presumably we do, otherwise we wouldn’t be so keen to talk about this tricky subject.  Our strength is in having useful information to impart.  If we can’t answer a question, and we have the guts to admit it, that’s impressive too.  We shouldn’t be afraid to lose a skirmish or two.  It’s the long term battle we’ve got ahead of us, and that’s mainly a psychological battle anyway, to come out at the end as a person other people can identify with.

Persuasion

1127: 

I’m in a tricky position as a self-appointed advocate for animals, because I’m assuming I have the right to talk about them on account of no longer eating them.  Maybe I think I’m in a strong position, but it doesn’t give me the right to tell anyone what they should be eating.  It doesn’t give me the right to expect them to agree with me.  It only makes me slightly experienced, enough perhaps to earn an invitation to speak on this subject.

If anyone wants to listen to what I have to say, I need to earn their respect and interest.  They may already think I’m likely to bore them on the subject.  So, if they give me the chance to speak, I then have to be convincing, whilst going easy on the moralising.

Sure, I might want very much to be an effective activist, communicator or educator, but I also want them to know I’m sensitive to their specific problems regarding food and their attitude to animals.  If they have addictions so too do I.  If they find self-discipline hard, well so do we all.  I can’t assume a role of authority just because I want to get their attention.  Nothing more off-putting.

         

Some practising vegans don’t want to be activists at all.  For them, Animal Rights isn’t a realistic cause to promote, if only because it seems like a ‘hopeless case’.  They’d rather speak about it only with people they know well.

         

Others decide to go further and attempt to persuade people to protest, to demonstrate or to get into direct action.  For that you have to believe the cause is worth promoting, despite the seeming lack of interest amongst people.

I’m not one of those hopeless-case-people. I’m sure people’s attitudes will eventually change.  However, at present, I realise there’s a very low awareness about the level of animal cruelty and the health dangers of eating animal foods.  Which is why any of us advocates need to be prepared to cop negative reactions.  People are generally in a very different head-space: “The sun is hot, the water’s cool, the beach is inviting.  Who gives a stuff about animals?  Just enjoy life”

With an attitude like that it’s probably not a good time to be talking about Animal Rights.  But this sort of attitude would be an extreme.  Perhaps at other places on the spectrum, it might go something like: “I don’t agree, but I admit it’s a serious issue.  I’m listening.  I’m ready to consider.  I hear what you have to say”.  Or, further along: “I agree in theory, I’ll give it a go.  I’ll try a plant-based diet”.  Or further: “I’m happy eating vegan food, I consider myself a vegan and I’m moving towards political activism”.  That might just about cover the whole range of responses.

At first, people have to break down their mistrust and their dislike of ‘people like us’.  If we can show an interest in them, then trust grows and dislike diminishes.  If there’s a spark of interest or even a serious question asked, then we’re almost in business, no longer needing to tread on eggshells.  Once someone takes the initiative of asking, it makes our job so much easier.  However, if I’m the one who tries to take the initiative, as if I’m putting my foot in the door, it’s likely I’ll get the door shut in my face.  I’ll have lost my chance.  And for them, ‘once bitten twice shy’, they’ve closed the door on me and that ends the whole matter, for ever. 

Going Public

1126: 

When we start hurling abuse in public it works wonders, in the short term.  “Meat is murder. Meat will kill you”.  It unifies one’s fellow protesters, it makes us all feel good, and sometimes it looks very brave, striking fear into people’s hearts.  But unless we’re willing to continually escalate that sort of approach it eventually loses its power and fizzles out.  Big talk and dire warnings become easily clichéd.

The aim of any Animal Rights protest should be to win people over, not alienate them.  (And it’s as if people are just busting to be alienated so they can justify feeling more separate).  For our part, we should start with setting a good example of how a highly principled activist behaves.  The way we conduct ourselves in public needs to reflect what we expect of others.  It’s up to us to establish calm in the face of opposition.

If we want to ‘go public’ we have to be prepared to get cold shouldered.  There are no surprises if everyone ignores what we say, since those who’re already feeling a bit guilty will use any excuse to avoid ‘spoilers’.  It’s possible that we might just be able to push through, by keeping on talking, making our points in spite of interruption and heckling, but perhaps that’s not the point.  Communication isn’t just about persistence, not over such personal matters as one’s attitude to animals, eating them, wearing them, etc.  This is a subject you can’t bring up as casually as you would the state of the weather.  It’s a subject people can’t afford to be too interested in, because it’s too confronting and it touches too many raw nerves.

We can’t casually bump into people on the street corner and converse with them on this very personal matter.  “Tell me, do you still eat meat?”  New ideas, especially as radical as these ideas, don’t circulate easily.  Some, who are ready to make changes, might not find such new ideas being discussed in the media.  At first, they’ll wonder why, until they realise the media itself is tightly controlled.  When it comes to this subject, it’s unlikely we’ll have both sides of the ‘animal argument’ presented, and that will inhibit our attempts to weigh up arguments, and therefore to arrive at conclusions.

But, all is not lost.  In fact we now have the Internet, where anyone can go searching for information about new or radical ideas.  But beyond the cyber world, when connecting with ‘live’ people in order to discuss the issues, it soon becomes obvious why this subject is kept under wraps - Animal Rights or veganism is highly inconvenient.  So, for us, it’s always going to be a long haul to even get people thinking and talking about it all.  Any progress we make will need a patient, step by step approach.

The first step is to make a connection.  And that means showing we’re genuine, ready to answer questions and not afraid of disagreement.  Obviously there’ll be differences of opinion.  And we must be there not just to answer questions but to bridge the gulf of opinion, in a non-threatening way.  Our overall job is to convince others that we only want to help, and that we’ve got no other agenda.

I’d like to stand with microphone in hand, in front of a crowd of eager listeners, and lecture them, but that’s not reality.  The soap box is dead.  I need to communicate in a more intimate way, in the spirit of a one-on-one conversation, and be prepared to cover a whole range of related issues.  So, when talking on this subject of animal-use, my first words will set the tone.  Talk usually starts by answering questions.  As an example:

“You’re a vegan then?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“It’s something I feel passionately about.”

         

If ever I get this far I’m usually tempted to go into too much detail, but that isn’t necessarily what anyone wants to hear, especially if it sounds like I’m bragging.  Superior ethics mixed with ‘passion’ will almost certainly make them regret asking the question, and then they’ll try to get off the subject.

I prefer not to show my hand too soon.

“You’re what?”

It’s meant to make me go on the defensive. 

“y….e .. s, go on …”, waiting to pounce on my first foolish statement, when they can go in for the kill.

So I’d prefer the less obvious approach.  I’d rather try to coax the conversation along by seeming to be a bit vulnerable, even innocent, because if I don’t seem too eager, they may show some interest.  I’d be trying to lure them into asking me to explain myself.  And that’s really where I want to get to, eventually.

         

I know they want a chance to justify themselves, by exploding my righteous position on all this.  But it’s just as likely they’re curious anyway, so I need to be ready to drop tactics and just be useful to them.  Our job is not to waste a genuine opportunity to pass on information, but always in a non-confrontational way.

Ideally, they must feel as if they are simply being informed, not put off.  Perhaps they’re out-manoeuvred, perhaps I’ve been cornered, but this is not about winning, it’s about the art of communicating and making friendly connections.  It’s about a stage-by-stage learning process, for us and for them.

Awake

1225: 

The alarm clock, the machine from Hell.

Your wonderful dream, interrupted by its jangling bell. 

Your sleeping hand lashes out, knocking it to the floor.

But it’s strongly built and keeps ringing, loud and sure. 

The alarm clock is resented at first, for waking you up, but later it’s restored to the bedside table, now appreciated for jolting you into the new day, perhaps allowing a new way of seeing reality.

         

The art of being vegan is to see the sleeping world for what it is, as simply not yet ready to wake.  It involves getting yourself thrown against the wall, having your initiatives cut short and your feelings hurt, but overall it is to know that whatever happens, that the sleepers will eventually be roused.  That’s where we come in, acting like daylight, breaking into the world of dreams and the comfortable warmth of sleep.  But how do we wake people, how do we let the daylight in?  And are we trying to wake people or alarm them?

         

Is it a revenge we want or to play by a gentle set of rules?  Are we rude awakeners or kindly voices of reason?  Some might need to be shaken, but how do we know if they don’t just need a whisper in the ear?  Imagine the damage we do when we come across as heavy booted.  Our good intentions might not be apparent.  We might be seen as pushy, like old time preachers.  We might not be able to see ourselves as others see us.  So, when we’re talking up Animal Rights, we forget to consider others’ feelings, forget to be subtler.

I often wonder how we can get the hardened omnivore to like eating vegan food or like animals enough to make a few personal sacrifices.  I know I won’t get far by finger wagging or disapproving or by a “look-at-me-look-at-my-health-aren’t-I-the-clever-one” approach.  But there again I need to be energetic, sure of my arguments and yet appear to be at ease with it all.

         

I can start by killing off the strict, clean-living image of an eater of dull-but-nutritious food.  If it has to be about food, then I’ll get further by letting my friends taste what I eat than hear about diet.  I need to get them to want to eat our way (and I’m talking here about delicious food that isn’t expensive or exotic).  Let them see an attractive lifestyle and hear me enjoying putting forward my arguments, as if it’s a breeze, as if it’s ridiculous for me to think any other way.  Let them be ‘wowed’ at my plan for the Earth’s brilliant future.  Let them see why I want to leave behind all those trashy, go-nowhere conventions, that others follow.

         

For that I don’t need to push or seem desperate, when I argue my case.  I’m already there, safe and sure, and happy to exist in a different culture which has a different sensitivity.  I don’t need to draw attention to it by seeming to be better than anybody else.  I just need to come across as an experimenter.  I’m probably showing off a bit (I can’t help it!) but only to present some life-saving ideas which are part of a grand plan.  And if it all seems a bit whacky (this preposterous idea of not using animals for anything) my aim would be to allow the penny to drop of its own accord.  I want to let the idea do the work for itself.  It’s not our job to persuade or rush anyone.

We’ve no need to prove we’re different or give anyone an excuse to stamp us ‘crazy’.  Instead we can simply act like a radio station that can be tuned into (or out of) at will, presenting good ideas for improving the quality of life.  If we’re telling a good story, it should be able to link issues of social justice with those of living harmlessly.  Then we can let people draw their own conclusions.

         

As advocates for animals and for human welfare, our message should be approximately the same as every other vegan throughout the world - a simple, subtle and soft promotion of non-violent progress.  For most of us, that’s the great challenge - to find subtler and more persuasive ways of reaching others, without using sledge-hammer tactics or the ugliness of such slogans as ‘meat is murder’ (which, needless to say, it most certainly is!). 

1224:

Edited by CJ Tointon

Broken Silence

Information doesn't have to be restricted these days.  But there is a 'silence' in the media on certain issues and important stories are going unreported.  In this way, people are 'protected' from knowing the truth;  which is that animals are being routinely attacked on a massive scale!  With a spineless media, held captive by its advertisers, there’s no way ordinary people can be kept informed.  The effect of this silence gives people the impression that nothing bad is happening.

It's incredible that most educated and otherwise well-informed people know so little about cruelty to farm animals.  But it isn’t that surprising when you think of how much conflicting information there is out there.  How can anyone sort out what is true and what isn’t?  Most people just give up trying to find out and revert to their old feeding habits.

What we badly need is one very talented, high profile, brave journalist, who’ll reveal not only the scale of animal cruelty but the cover-up.  The cover-up itself, could become the bigger and more shocking story, because it involves the duping of the public.

There have been stories published about specific atrocities (such as the live export of animals) and there are many organisations who have 'outed' factory farming.  But rarely do we see anyone with the courage to expose the problems of the entire animal trade.  No one ever attempts to comprehensively expose the cruelties and combine it with warnings of the widespread health risks associated with consuming animal protein.  The story is too big!  It would require the financing and heavyweight backing that something like a Royal Commission would warrant.  A story which takes on such broad condemnations would be considered too 'ambitious'.  It would never get up and running in the first place since it wouldn't have enough support from the community who make so much use of so many animals.

Perhaps this is why the time is not yet ripe for talented writers to emerge.  If and when the story is told, it might start with the disastrous health consequences of eating animal-based foods with the added cruelty factor thrown in for good measure.  However, the real impact of the story would concern the scale of the 'cover-up'.  This should outrage people and make them realise to what extent they’d been kept in the dark.

The intention is obviously to keep the covers on the 'animal story' for as long as possible, ideally for many generations to come.  For our kids to be 'information protected' like this is bad enough, but in a world where so many are dying from lack of food, the whole subject of food shortage will one day be critical and the cost of wastefully producing vast amounts of food to feed to animals (so they can be eaten) will be seen for the obscenity it really is. Such waste, on such a massive scale, will only ever be seen as the most unintelligent and inefficient way to feed people.

From the Animal Industry’s point of view, it would seem essential to maintain the silence, the cover-up and the duping of people, for the purpose of lining their pockets.  Eventually, the truth will come out, but in the meantime ('mean' is the word!) they probably hope to make their money and then just cut and run.

    

Once exposed, we’ll see just how these exploiters-of-animals have diced with people’s lives, for the sake of profit.  Their story will tell us one thing in particular, that humans can never to be trusted around animals.  This includes both producers and consumers alike.  They all contribute to the widespread exploitation of animals.  Only when this is fully understood, will the 'cruelty-system' fail, allowing the transition to plant-based lifestyles to take place.

At this point, Vegans will be seen to be valuable for their practical assistance.  But so many things have to happen before that.  We first have to learn the truth, in a major exposé, from one well respected and talented journalist.  But before he or she writes that essential story, there’s a job for us ordinary animal advocates.  In these early days, it’s up to us to lay the ground, to try to catch the eye of the public and keep their awareness ticking over, so that at the right time a talented writer, already Vegan, will not only be capable of writing but will be able to write from a point of personal conscience. 

Move to Activism

1223:

Animal activists make it their business to look where others don’t look.  Many years ago, after I was advised to take a closer look at things, everything changed for me.  What I saw made me realise I’d been living in ignorance. It turned me vegan.  “If only others knew about this”, I said to myself, and I believed that others, once they knew, would obviously react as I did.

I was sure that others would be outraged enough to change their eating habits and their attitudes to ‘food’ animals, enough to boycott the Industry’s evil products.  But I was wrong.  When graphic footage was shown at prime time on TV, there must have been millions of people watching, so imagine the shock I got when there was NO surge of compassion, no Letters to the Editor, no exposé.  It got me wondering about people, particularly about all those responsible parents, elected politicians, appointed preachers and qualified teachers.  Why weren’t they revising their scripts?  Why weren’t they speaking up?  Why hadn’t I been told about any of this?  First, I got angry, and then I became very sad.  My belief in my world was crumbling, all those people I’d trusted to do what was right had let me down, and let down everybody who trusted them.

Now, some decades later, I’m still wondering who these people are, people with responsible positions in our society.  Why aren’t they teaching young people what they themselves must obviously know about?  It’s all common knowledge now, it’s not as if they missed that first news programme, because there have been many others since, showing graphic details of the routine cruelty and exploitation of animals on farms.  Perhaps it’s  because they are themselves part of the war against animals, perhaps they don’t want to know, or more particularly don’t want the kids to know.  Because if the young people found out that they’d been duped over this, it would reflect badly on the very people they trusted to tell them the truth.

As I moved into adulthood, or at least into a state of independence (shopping for food and clothing, cooking my own meals, etc), I began to focus on the job in hand.  The shock had passed, and now my gorge rose, and I was determined to make it my business to join with others who felt as I did, and expose the whole rotten business.

But I wanted our activism to work.  I was moving on from blaming ‘those who didn’t tell us’, because I started to realise there were just too many ‘out there’ who wanted to keep it all under wraps.  I realised that to be an effective activist for the animals, I’d need to give up the blame game.  No time to waste.  Simply draw up a simple instruction protocol and expect others to challenge it.

If adult people are acting like children, pretending not to know what to do, then perhaps we must tell them very simply how they ought to act: see how the pig is forced to live, and then drop pork; see how the battery system operates, and then drop eggs; see what goes on at the abattoir, then stop eating everything ‘with a face’.

         

This is a simple but powerful idea - imagining the face.  We might take a look at the face of an animal. If you’ve ever seen an animal at the abattoir, being led into the execution chamber, its face is unforgettable.  And from the face, the sounds - the sound she makes in her despair, with the machinery groaning alongside her, the harsh voices of humans around her, these are the saddest sounds.  What you see and hear in these places is gut wrenching.

When I first saw it, it was enough to stop me in my tracks, make me check my habits, make me boycott, make me plant-base all my food and move on to activism.  At first, and for some time afterwards for me, it was a huge project, changing my food habits, then shoes and then certain articles of clothing.  And once I’d established the whole vegan ‘thing’ for myself, I looked out with fresh eyes at the animal cruelty and realised I’d left behind my need to be ‘fitting-in’ with other people - I had now lost faith in human nature, and that began to replace my anger and sadness and started to fuel my activism.  And later even that changed, because I began to see why, however bad things are, however disgusted at others’ behaviour we may be, that we should never give up on human nature. We should never stop seeing the potential in people.  Many of us have changed. Many others will change.  To give up on everyone would be the ultimate sadness.

We only have ourselves to set the standards for our activism, and on that standard rests the success or failure of our goal to liberate animals.  We’d better be very sure we’re not using all this as an excuse to vent our anger.  We’d better be certain it’s not about getting our revenge on the people we’ve lost faith in, because that will never help the animals to be liberated.